Re: DFSG compatibility of the "Poetic License"
Hi Ben,
I came across an old discussion regarding a license I wrote for
memorability, clarity, and most of all, fun. Your argument against
using the license due to a general desire to minimise proliferation is
sound. And in this respect, the license is placed in the same category
as ALL NEW licenses, regardless of novelty. In all righteousness, may
evolution cease!
However, the detailed line by line legal attack is as humorous as the
original poem was intended. Further arguments are tidy rubbish, as the
license is DIRECTLY based on the BSD, MIT, and ISC, either verbatim,
or in most cases, word shifted for rhyme and rhythm.
Poetic License:
(c) <year> <copyright holders>
This work ‘as-is’ we provide.
No warranty, express or implied.
We’ve done our best,
to debug and test.
Liability for damages denied.
Permission is granted hereby,
to copy, share, and modify.
Use as is fit,
free or for profit.
On this notice these rights rely.
Let's start with the MIT license, shall we?:
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS",
WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
BSD:
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY <copyright holder> ''AS IS''
AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES,
INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED.
Continuing with the ISC, I hardly think even lawyers have corrupted
the English languish enough that it is necessarily to declare all
possibilities and/or their converse just to articulate the concepts of
"ALL" or "NONE"? For example, "direct or indirect", "these damages or
any other damages", "this, that, or other"?:
IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE
FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER
RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS,
WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE
OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF
OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE
OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
The last stanza of the Poetic License again:
Permission is granted hereby,
to copy, share, and modify.
Use as is fit,
free or for profit.
On this notice these rights rely.
The ISC again:
Permission to use, copy, modify,
and/or distribute this software for any purpose
with or without fee
is hereby granted,
provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice
appear in all copies.
Perhaps more appropriate are accusations of plagiarism. I can not deny
guilt. I blatantly copied three licenses!
Sincerely yours, with tongue in cheek,
Alex Genaud
http://genaud.net/2005/10/poetic-license/
----
2008-06-28 Ben Finney wrote:
>
> Maximilian Gaß <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I recently discovered the Poetic License:
>
> Which makes for interesting rhythm and a smile, but I very much doubt
> its robustness as a legal instrument.
>
>> This work ‘as-is’ we provide.
>
> What is meant by this? Without explanation and clarification, it's
> close to being a tautology.
>
>> No warranty express or implied.
>
> What happens where this conflicts with the very common situation where
> there *is* an implied license required by the jurisdiction: does the
> license still apply? Which parts apply?
>
>> We’ve done our best,
>> to debug and test.
>> Liability for damages denied.
>
> Again, what of the cases where such liability *cannot* be denied under
> law? The license must make provision for that, or leave itself open to
> being null in that case.
>
>> Permission is granted hereby,
>
> To whom, exactly? The terms need to specify and define parties.
>
> What part does the recipient play? Passive voice may make the meter
> easier to write, but it's needlessly difficult for working out what
> the heck it means.
>
>> to copy, share, and modify.
>
> What about redistribution? Presumably that's meant to be included in
> "share", but it's not clear.
>
> What terms may the "shared" work be licensed under?
>
>> Use as is fit,
>> free or for profit.
>
> The use of an unqualified action of "use" in a legal document about
> software works is vague to the point of uselessness.
>
>> These rights, on this notice, rely.
>
> Is this meant to have some legal meaning? Or should we ignore it?
>
>> <http://genaud.net/2005/10/poetic-license/>
>
> What works do we know of licensed under these terms?
>
>> I ponder using this license for my own stuff, but I'd like to hear
>> some opinions from debian-legal before doing it.
>
> Whatever its worth as a poem, as a legal instrument I can only think
> it is vague waffle that is wantonly open to interpretation. That's a
> fine property of poetry, but it's poisonous for a license.
>
> License proliferation seems fun to the instigator, but it's an utter
> pain for those trying to follow them and is to be avoided whenever
> possible.
>
> Please, please do not use these terms for any work. There are far more
> robust, well-tested and scrutinised licenses that, after painstaking
> scrutiny under diverse circumstances, are widely thought to result in
> free works: please choose one of them.
>
--
[ alex@genaud.net ][ http://genaud.net ]
[ B068 ED90 F47B 0965 2953 9FC3 EE9C C4D5 3E51 A207 ]
Reply to: